Human moral reasoning relies extensively on metaphors from physical experience. We say “you’re sick!” or “he’s dirty” as moral metaphors because we being sick or dirty in real life is an unpleasant experience. So if you tell people “better to be more dysgenic” and construct fitness as definitionally fascistic (even if it *can* be, in some circumstances), people will think you’re insane, because they know how it feels to be sick and weak (bad), and how it feels to be fit (good). You’re telling them that the thing they know as a state of suffering is virtue, and they thing they know as a state of pleasure is sin. So, yeah, people will reject yu. There’s also a leftist tic on display here—to simply invert all existing morality in order to reject everything contaminated by capitalist hegemony. “Capitalists think being sick and disabled is bad; therefore it is good.” But this misidentifies which things exist *because* of capitalism, and which things predate it and have been metabolized into it; people have been using sickness and health as moral metaphors for millennia (probably forever, tbh, but can’t say for sure without written sources). Long before capitalism, people were doing this. Why? Because it feels bad to be sick! And it feels good to be fit and physically capable! That is actually a pretty universal human experience. So if you try to invert that and render sickness and disability as metaphorically or literally virtuous, people will find you insane